Ron Paul: True Liberty vs. Perfect Safety

Recent incidents of violence in Norway and London have made us understandably uncomfortable here at home, as many fear that a worsening economy will lead to violence and unrest in American cities. This is why Congress must view the economy as its first priority and a matter of national security. Unless and until we get our fiscal house in order to foster economic growth, civil society will continue to deteriorate.

The fundamental lesson every American should learn from these incidents is that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm. But Norway and England have strict gun control laws, and London in particular has security cameras monitoring nearly all public areas. But laws and spy cameras are useless in the face of lawless mobs or sick mass killers.

Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened these tragedies. We should remember that theft, arson and property damage were not the only criminal acts in London. Innocent bystanders were assaulted and killed as well. In those instances, deadly force used in self-defense would have been fully justified.

Perhaps the only good that could come from these terrible events is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families. This means frankly that we must own and wisely use firearms to deter or prevent criminal assaults on our homes and persons. It is absurd to think police or government agents can protect 310 million Americans around the clock.

Thanks to our media and many government officials, however, Americans have have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a prominent news story, people reflexively demand that government “do something.” This impulse almost always leads to bad laws, more debt and a loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and individual responsibility.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras and metal detectors? Do we want to imprison every disturbed or alienated individual who fantasizes about violence? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

Freedom is not defined by safety; freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference – unless they use force or fraud against others. Government cannot create a world without risk, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

218 Comments:

People can look at societal and family conditioning. I was taught sinse early childhood that it was agianst the law to defend oneself. This ideology, of which I was taught, is fundamentally flawed for it only enforces dependency and retracts liberty. Allow people the right to defend themselves and you get civility. Case in point: Kennesaw. GA.

IMPORTANT!!!
IF YOU DONT ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THE FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS IN AMERICA DO SOME RESEARCH ABOUT THEM AND HOW FEMA WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTE POWER IN CASE OF A DISASTER, ECT... THE CONSTITUTION WILL BE SUSPENDED! I.E. YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS!
VERY SCARY STUFF!

government helps the rich keep their power. paul wants to make it easier for all of us to start our own businesses, by increasing our liberty to do so. this makes it less likely that i would be unemployed. briging the troops home will stimulate our economy in the USA. Bush and Oh Bomb Ya have maed it easier for the military industrial complex and the banks to remain wealthy at the expense of the middle classs and the poor.

Libertarians assume people are good and will do the right thing. But we all know that they will bone you up the ass when you reach for the soap. The problem isn't government, but that power doesn't turn over anymore because the rich have figure out how to hold on to their money, and Paul wants to make it easier for them.

No one person's right can ever supercede or take away any other person's rights.

Your argument contradicts itself. Government isn't the problem but the problem is that power doesn't turn over anymore? The government is the only entity that has the ability to enact and enforce unjust laws that coerce and steal money from the man in the street.

Libertarians assume if you bend over to pick up the soap and someone tries to 'bone you up the ass' as you said, that you'll be armed and be able to defend yourself.

In economic terms, to defend yourself from the rape of the bankers you should have competing currencies that prevent the government mandated law that you accept their legal tender. No government mandated tax through inflation of the money supply to bail out ANY entity.

Ok, and what happens when the police send a SWAT team into your house on a botched raid on the wrong residence and they proceed to shoot your dog and your wife? Good luck with your broom stick to the face.

Indiana supreme court says you must shut up and take it, you cannot defend your house against the police, even if they don't have a warrant.

Hope you don't smell 'funny' because they'll be raiding your home next.

Do you want to fill peoples fridges? I can tell you how to do it with minimum spending and regulation.
Leave someone without food for a few days though and they will kill their neighbor for it.
I've been working on a model for and expandable human habitat system that could be implemented anywhere and support a human ecology. Totalitarianism is not the way to accomplish those goals though...

Reminder :Change your affiliation to REPUB ASAP to be guaranteed that you can vote DR.Paul in the critical primary which secures the nomination. He has manu former Obama supporters who have crossed party lines- if you live in a closed/semi closed/semi open primary state ( check wikipedia or goole) you will not be able to vote for him in that primary election if you are a registered DEM. SO ,change to REPUB today -dont get cheated out of a vote &dont let them cheat Ron Paul out of the nomination

Disclaimer

RonPaul.com is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul or his staff.